JustSomeDood
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 6:53 am

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:

I'm not of the 787-9 "small is fine" believers in a growing markets. I just don't see airlines downscaling from the 772ER from Asia for the next 20 years.


I remember you sharing that opinion a number of times in the AA 777-200ER thread before they cancelled the A350 order and selected the 787. Some airlines will choose the 787-9 and others will choose the A350-900 for transpacific flying. No one plane is perfect for every mission

From this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373579

keesje wrote:
It seems this post was well timed. :biggrin:

I think in this trade-off we shouldn't ignore the A350 is the must-have 300-350 seats /8000NM platform at this stage. AA & Leahy know all the numbers. It seems AA is negotiating price via the press.

...

The A350s offer more payload-range, comfort, bigger wings for hot airports and a growth option (-1000) for Asian flights. The 787-9 & -10 are better dimensioned for America's and Europe in this case.
.


The payload range of the A350 attractive over longer missions, but as we can tell from the number of 787-8s and 787-9s flying transpacific, the 787-9 is not only for the Americas and Europe. It can do transpacific.

The 787-10 certainly could be made to fly longer with higher MTOWs, but I think its simple stretch design is advantageous because it is one of the only widebodies built for the short to medium range high capacity markets.



The 47 aircraft (787-8 &787-9) ordered nearly equals the amount of Airbus A330s (24) and 767s (24) that remain in the American fleet. Have AA changed their plans and they will now ordered the 787s to replace the 777 fleet? It seems you are mixing different topics here..


Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7253
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:17 am

The sales numbers answer that. The 787 is the preferred choice of the world´s leading airlines. And a 787-1000ER is a logical move that will strengthen the Boeing dominance in the widebody market.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:54 am

seahawk wrote:
The sales numbers answer that.

Answer what?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ap305
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:05 am

JustSomeDood wrote:

Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.


It does not have to prove anything. Every airline in the world that operates these aircraft has guarantees based on actual performance. The a350-900 is meeting those guarantees and beating some of them according to more than one CEO. As Zeke has pointed out on more than one occasion, the a359 lifts more payload than the 777-300er over longer routes. This performance is something the 787 family does not come close to despite the imaginations of many people on this board.Let us look at some real world figures for a comparison. The 787-9 uses 92 tons of fuel for its 17h flight from Perth to London. It also carries 8t of reserves. Let us assume a best case OEW of 129t based on the planning docs for the 787. That gives 25t of payload. The a359 burns 6t of fuel per hour on longer sectors. This means 110t of fuel including reserves for Per-Lhr. Assuming an Owe of 137 ton, this would give a payload of 30t over the flight time. This means the the a350 uses 3.4t of fuel per ton payload carried. The 787-9 uses 3.68t. All this of course assumes both aircraft can be filled and does not take into account the 5% better fuel burn of the batch 4 a359 which has already rolled out.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7253
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:34 am

Still the route is flown by the 787.
 
ap305
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:43 am

seahawk wrote:
Still the route is flown by the 787.


Yes...no fault of the a350 that Qantas does not have it in their fleet. Note that I am talking about a specific aspect of performance in my post and not the suitability of either aircraft to the larger fleet requirements of a particular airline.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
WIederling
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:49 am

seahawk wrote:
Still the route is flown by the 787.


You have to work with the horses in your stable.
Early 787 customers surf on exceptional pricing ( and from an earlier "what to buy" decission.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 9:04 am

ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:

Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.


It does not have to prove anything. Every airline in the world that operates these aircraft has guarantees based on actual performance. The a350-900 is meeting those guarantees and beating some of them according to more than one CEO. As Zeke has pointed out on more than one occasion, the a359 lifts more payload than the 777-300er over longer routes. This performance is something the 787 family does not come close to despite the imaginations of many people on this board.Let us look at some real world figures for a comparison. The 787-9 uses 92 tons of fuel for its 17h flight from Perth to London. It also carries 8t of reserves. Let us assume a best case OEW of 129t based on the planning docs for the 787. That gives 25t of payload. The a359 burns 6t of fuel per hour on longer sectors. This means 110t of fuel including reserves for Per-Lhr. Assuming an Owe of 137 ton, this would give a payload of 30t over the flight time. This means the the a350 uses 3.4t of fuel per ton payload carried. The 787-9 uses 3.68t. All this of course assumes both aircraft can be filled and does not take into account the 5% better fuel burn of the batch 4 a359 which has already rolled out.


And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?
 
ap305
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 9:52 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:

Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.


It does not have to prove anything. Every airline in the world that operates these aircraft has guarantees based on actual performance. The a350-900 is meeting those guarantees and beating some of them according to more than one CEO. As Zeke has pointed out on more than one occasion, the a359 lifts more payload than the 777-300er over longer routes. This performance is something the 787 family does not come close to despite the imaginations of many people on this board.Let us look at some real world figures for a comparison. The 787-9 uses 92 tons of fuel for its 17h flight from Perth to London. It also carries 8t of reserves. Let us assume a best case OEW of 129t based on the planning docs for the 787. That gives 25t of payload. The a359 burns 6t of fuel per hour on longer sectors. This means 110t of fuel including reserves for Per-Lhr. Assuming an Owe of 137 ton, this would give a payload of 30t over the flight time. This means the the a350 uses 3.4t of fuel per ton payload carried. The 787-9 uses 3.68t. All this of course assumes both aircraft can be filled and does not take into account the 5% better fuel burn of the batch 4 a359 which has already rolled out.


And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?


The data I have shown is "real world". There are plenty of open sources including photos of the flight management systems at various points of flight available on both flickr and instagram which display all relevant data-Unless you believe that the cockpit lies to the pilots. The basic payload range data is available in the planning documents on both manufacturer's websites. We have a senior a350 pilot on this forum who has on more than one occasion been kind enough to share "real word" data. Sq's cost structure may simply not permit to take large payload hits which even if less than UA does not provide the premium revenue they are looking for. A desner cabin does not mean heavier- SQ's elaborate and larger business class seats are most certainly heavier than what UA has on board. Dl has the 268t a359 not the current max variant of 277t. Nowhere did I say the a350 lifts more than the 777-200lr although QR has replaced the 777w/lr on a few ulr routes to the U.S.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
tealnz
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 2:15 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?

In the real world it's case by case. To give an obvious example, NZ have been happy with the 789 (apart from the current engine troubles). They got them cheap. They're great for NZ-Asia. But they are stopping at 14 and are looking for something with more payload/range to replace the 77Es. They have used the 789 on AKL-IAH and will use it to launch AKL-ORD but they will be selecting between the 359 and the 77X for their next type. They carry a lot of cargo westbound to Auckland and their business model won't sustain the low-density layouts of QF (235 pax in a 789) or SQ.
The 789 isn't in the running for this selection. The 359 is. This shouldn't be a surprise: the 359 is a bigger aircraft, has a bigger wing, carries a lot more gas and has a lot more headroom on MTOW than the 789. Boeing and Airbus made different design choices. Those have real-world implications.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 2:15 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

I remember you sharing that opinion a number of times in the AA 777-200ER thread before they cancelled the A350 order and selected the 787. Some airlines will choose the 787-9 and others will choose the A350-900 for transpacific flying. No one plane is perfect for every mission

From this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373579



The payload range of the A350 attractive over longer missions, but as we can tell from the number of 787-8s and 787-9s flying transpacific, the 787-9 is not only for the Americas and Europe. It can do transpacific.

The 787-10 certainly could be made to fly longer with higher MTOWs, but I think its simple stretch design is advantageous because it is one of the only widebodies built for the short to medium range high capacity markets.



The 47 aircraft (787-8 &787-9) ordered nearly equals the amount of Airbus A330s (24) and 767s (24) that remain in the American fleet. Have AA changed their plans and they will now ordered the 787s to replace the 777 fleet? It seems you are mixing different topics here..


Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.


AA has also already stated that later 789 deliveries will begin replacement of the 77E.

I think down the road a proper 787-10ER will come to fruition and it would really help round out the 787 family.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 2:17 pm

In my opinion any A330-300 route being operated is a potential route for the 787-10.

I have may helped cause the discussion to veer into the ultra long haul conversation. In reality, that is a pretty small market. The 787-9, A350-900/1000, and 777-8/9 offer plenty of options for that segment. Airlines that want to upgauge, downguage and stay the same have options.

The 787-10 is best utilized on trunk routes under 4000nm. London to New York/Dubai or on regional international flights like Hong Kong to Taipei/Singapore. The 787-10 range is similar to the A330, which has sold over 1000 airplanes. It is not entirely handicapped, but it sounds that way when the conversation turns to ultra long haul.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 2:26 pm

ap305 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Still the route is flown by the 787.


Yes...no fault of the a350 that Qantas does not have it in their fleet. Note that I am talking about a specific aspect of performance in my post and not the suitability of either aircraft to the larger fleet requirements of a particular airline.


Thanks for that clarification. The A350 is used in 3 of the 30 longest routes in the world. 19 of them are operated by 777s, 7 are with 787s and 4 are with A380s. Obviously the performance numbers you are sharing don’t necessarily speak to the suitability of the larger fleet requirements.

The A350 can perform well on long haul flights, but it isn’t the only choice. With time we are seeing more 787s and A350s replace 777s on ultra long haul flights. The 787 has a big head start with 4 times the number of airplanes in service (over 600 now) and a much bigger orderbook than the A350 (1365 compared to 832). Having 3 family members on the 787 probably helps. The 787-10 is for high capacity medium range routes. The 787-9 is most versatile and can be used for ultra long haul and the 787-8 has lowest trip costs. The A350 only has two family members but Airbus also offers the A330neo.

In the end, no plane is perfect and Airlines have a variety of options to fill their fleet needs unlike 30 years ago when the only practical choice was the 747.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 4:07 pm

ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:

It does not have to prove anything. Every airline in the world that operates these aircraft has guarantees based on actual performance. The a350-900 is meeting those guarantees and beating some of them according to more than one CEO. As Zeke has pointed out on more than one occasion, the a359 lifts more payload than the 777-300er over longer routes. This performance is something the 787 family does not come close to despite the imaginations of many people on this board.Let us look at some real world figures for a comparison. The 787-9 uses 92 tons of fuel for its 17h flight from Perth to London. It also carries 8t of reserves. Let us assume a best case OEW of 129t based on the planning docs for the 787. That gives 25t of payload. The a359 burns 6t of fuel per hour on longer sectors. This means 110t of fuel including reserves for Per-Lhr. Assuming an Owe of 137 ton, this would give a payload of 30t over the flight time. This means the the a350 uses 3.4t of fuel per ton payload carried. The 787-9 uses 3.68t. All this of course assumes both aircraft can be filled and does not take into account the 5% better fuel burn of the batch 4 a359 which has already rolled out.


And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?


The data I have shown is "real world". There are plenty of open sources including photos of the flight management systems at various points of flight available on both flickr and instagram which display all relevant data-Unless you believe that the cockpit lies to the pilots. The basic payload range data is available in the planning documents on both manufacturer's websites. We have a senior a350 pilot on this forum who has on more than one occasion been kind enough to share "real word" data. Sq's cost structure may simply not permit to take large payload hits which even if less than UA does not provide the premium revenue they are looking for. A desner cabin does not mean heavier- SQ's elaborate and larger business class seats are most certainly heavier than what UA has on board. Dl has the 268t a359 not the current max variant of 277t. Nowhere did I say the a350 lifts more than the 777-200lr although QR has replaced the 777w/lr on a few ulr routes to the U.S.


Alright then, if the data you've shown is indicative of real world operating conditions (again links to such sources would be welcome), then for LAX-SIN (block time of ~17.5 hrs), the A350 should have 277-(17.5*6+8)-137 = 27t of usable payload. With SQ's ~250 pax A350s, there shouldn't be any payload hit at all, did SQ get heavier, worse fuel burn lemons again :) (this time deliberately)? If your argument is that lie-flat Js are heavy, I'd counter that UA has more of them in the cabin. (48J vs 42J).

I also disagree with the assertion that UA is taking "large payload hits" on their SIN-LAX/SFO routes. A UA Employee on this forum has claimed that their 789s average 3-5t of freight per flight from LAX, 5-7t of freight per flight from SFO, with return flights to the US moving up to 10t of freight, that's as valid as the "real world" fuel consumption data given by you. Given that UA has plenty of flights TPAC and is not a cargo-heavy airline, they're not gonna block seats just to move freight between these two locations, ergo, pax and total payload limits should be fairly generous on those routes. The overarching point being, the A350's "massive" advantage over the 789 on most ULR routes simply isn't as ironclad, or massive, as some posters here suggest.


tealnz wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?

In the real world it's case by case. To give an obvious example, NZ have been happy with the 789 (apart from the current engine troubles). They got them cheap. They're great for NZ-Asia. But they are stopping at 14 and are looking for something with more payload/range to replace the 77Es. They have used the 789 on AKL-IAH and will use it to launch AKL-ORD but they will be selecting between the 359 and the 77X for their next type. They carry a lot of cargo westbound to Auckland and their business model won't sustain the low-density layouts of QF (235 pax in a 789) or SQ.
The 789 isn't in the running for this selection. The 359 is. This shouldn't be a surprise: the 359 is a bigger aircraft, has a bigger wing, carries a lot more gas and has a lot more headroom on MTOW than the 789. Boeing and Airbus made different design choices. Those have real-world implications.


NZ is very much one of the exceptions that proves the rule, high freight rates and low competition for cargo, long sector lengths, and a non-premium market means that yes, NZ is one of the few airlines that could actually very effectively leverage the A350's payload (above pax) at range by stuffing the bird with lots of expensive-priced cargo. Freight-related payload at long range is a secondary consideration, if that, for the vast majority of Airline's fleet considerations at present.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 4:22 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Interesting. Do you have the article discussing it?


No. I tried to find something, but couldn't. But I do know they said it and it was reported and discussed on this forum back at the time (probably around when the 787-9 entered Firm Configuration).
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 4:49 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:

And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?


You're not running an entirely fair comparison here though: the 787 has been available for many more years and there are many more of them in service. Lots of those long routes you cite have been launched quite recently. Comparing the 787 2 years ago or the A350 2 years will provide more of an answer than what you've suggested. With the exception of SFO-SIN, all of the longest routes on the 787 were launched either last year or this year. In the next year or 2 we'll see plenty of very long A350 routes opened up.

On top of that, it's quite possible airlines are just waiting for the more capable A350 (weight) variants, because they know it's coming.

As for those specific routes: SQ wants to run a very premium A350 on the route, the 77L is still a top lifter for DL and that's probably very important for them on SYD/LAX. Also quite possible that use of a small but growing A350 fleet is more optimised on different routes first.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 6:11 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
ap305 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:

Doesn't matter, the fact that 787s are being flown on many of the world's longest routes (LHR-PER, SIN-LAX, SYD-IAH) means that airlines believe these routes can be flown with a profitable payload over those ranges, the fact that it's A330/767 capacity doesn't change that it's a highly capable aircraft. If anything, the onus is on the A350 family to prove that it does provide superior payload-range and Economics on these long routes.


It does not have to prove anything. Every airline in the world that operates these aircraft has guarantees based on actual performance. The a350-900 is meeting those guarantees and beating some of them according to more than one CEO. As Zeke has pointed out on more than one occasion, the a359 lifts more payload than the 777-300er over longer routes. This performance is something the 787 family does not come close to despite the imaginations of many people on this board.Let us look at some real world figures for a comparison. The 787-9 uses 92 tons of fuel for its 17h flight from Perth to London. It also carries 8t of reserves. Let us assume a best case OEW of 129t based on the planning docs for the 787. That gives 25t of payload. The a359 burns 6t of fuel per hour on longer sectors. This means 110t of fuel including reserves for Per-Lhr. Assuming an Owe of 137 ton, this would give a payload of 30t over the flight time. This means the the a350 uses 3.4t of fuel per ton payload carried. The 787-9 uses 3.68t. All this of course assumes both aircraft can be filled and does not take into account the 5% better fuel burn of the batch 4 a359 which has already rolled out.


And yet, actual airline route decisions seem to run contrary to your "real world figures" (None of those figures are real world unless taken directly out of internal operating data) .
-SQ's reluctance to open SIN-LAX on their normal A350, despite said A350s being the same seating capacity as UA's 789s (I.e less dense) and previous operations there (I. E demonstrated premium demand)
- DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this? Meanwhile, QF, AA, UA have been operating similar routes (Oz-west coast US) on their 787s for quite some time.
-Heck, if the A350s payload-range is as stellar as you imply, why hasn't QR taken their 77Ls off DOH-AKL? It's a capacity increase for less trip cost, and the ME3 certainty have no problem retiring aircraft early, so what gives?


I also have some doubt about the range capability of A350. For example, Delta's real world figure shows A359 only has a range of 8000sm (12875 km).

Source: https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... -a350.html

As a comparison:

77E: 8542 sm
77L: 10735 sm
Last edited by moyangmm on Sun May 13, 2018 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tealnz
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 6:17 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
I also disagree with the assertion that UA is taking "large payload hits" on their SIN-LAX/SFO routes. A UA Employee on this forum has claimed that their 789s average 3-5t of freight per flight from LAX, 5-7t of freight per flight from SFO, with return flights to the US moving up to 10t of freight, that's as valid as the "real world" fuel consumption data given by you. Given that UA has plenty of flights TPAC and is not a cargo-heavy airline, they're not gonna block seats just to move freight between these two locations, ergo, pax and total payload limits should be fairly generous on those routes.

A couple of months ago on another thread LAXintl reported some specifics: "United utilizes seat hold backs from both SFO and LAX to SIN.
For example LAX tomorrow is 34 and SFO is 18. LAX peaked as high as 70 for period back in Jan/Feb due strongest seasonal jetstream".

I guess it's a seasonal thing. Point is, the 789 is a great aircraft but it has real limits on ULH routes, particularly westbound against the jetstream. Also underlines the fact that, at least with full loads, the 787-10 is going to remain basically a regional aircraft (like A330 CEO with full loads).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:17 pm

tealnz wrote:
Point is, the 789 is a great aircraft but it has real limits on ULH routes, particularly westbound against the jetstream.


To be fair, the A350-900 is likely not going to fare appreciably better. Looking at the figures Airbus and Boeing provide in their ACAPs, both the 787-9 and A350-900 look to carry about 53,000kg at max payload with the 787-9 doing 5250nm at 254,000kg TOW and the A350-900 doing 6000nm at 275,000kg TOW. And United's 2017 Pacific load factor was 79%, which was three points down from 2016. So if we figure 80% average LF on those routes, that's 202 seats - 50 below capacity and more than what they normally block. SFO would need to be at 93% LF and LAX 87% before the average seat block had an impact on involuntary denied boardings.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:25 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this?
moyangmm wrote:
I also have some doubt about the range capability of A350. For example, Delta's real world figure shows A359 only has a range of 8000sm (12875 km).

Both of these are terrible examples for what you two are attempting to demonstrate.

DL's A359s are 268T birds, and they've opted to standardize the fleet at that setting despite the limitations that it'd impose on some routings.

But that's a choice, not a restriction.

DL could place a phone call to Airbus tomorrow, and give those birds 9tonnes+ additional capability (and thus the route performance to match) if they wanted to.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:50 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
DL's reluctance to switch away from the 77L in their SYD-LAX route, despite the fact that this is exactly the sort of long routing where the fuel burn savings of the A350 should pay dividends. Are we to assume that Delta, a very financially savvy airline, wouldn't be aware of this?
moyangmm wrote:
I also have some doubt about the range capability of A350. For example, Delta's real world figure shows A359 only has a range of 8000sm (12875 km).

Both of these are terrible examples for what you two are attempting to demonstrate.

DL's A359s are 268T birds, and they've opted to standardize the fleet at that setting despite the limitations that it'd impose on some routings.

But that's a choice, not a restriction.

DL could place a phone call to Airbus tomorrow, and give those birds 9tonnes+ additional capability (and thus the route performance to match) if they wanted to.


Thanks for the information!

What kind of modifications are required to give an additional 9t increase? How farther away can these birds fly if additional capability is given?
Currently it can fly 8000 sm = 6950 nm, so maybe an additional 500 nm for the 9t fuel?

Also, is 9t the upper limit that one can call Airbus to add? Can they require an addition of 12t to make it 280t?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 7:53 pm

So here is my confusion, Boeing did not design the 787 to be a replacement for the 777W, Airbus did not design the A350 to be a head on competitor for the 787 but to go after the 777-200ER and 777W, so why exactly are we now making these comparisons as if these a/c were designed as head to head competitors?
How can we be shocked that the A350 goes further with more payload, that is what we expect from a larger frame, or are we just tired of comparing the A350 with the 777W?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:06 pm

moyangmm wrote:
What kind of modifications are required to give an additional 9t increase?

A cheque from DL, a software plug from Airbus, and higher operational fees paid to the regulators/authorities concerned.


moyangmm wrote:
Also, is 9t the upper limit that one can call Airbus to add?

IINM, 277T is the highest any current operator has retroactively gone to.
278T birds are being factory-delivered as of now (PR will be the first to receive one)


moyangmm wrote:
Can they require an addition of 12t to make it 280t?

Not yet. Only the A359ULR currently has the 280T option.

After 2020, standard A359s will receive it as well... but those will also come with other modifications (doors, brakes, etc) to lighten empty weight or strengthen structure. I don't know if current A359s will be given the option to upgrade to 280T; they may, but they won't match the performance of factory-delivered such birds, for that reason.


par13del wrote:
Boeing did not design the 787 to be a replacement for the 777W, Airbus did not design the A350 to be a head on competitor for the 787 but to go after the 777-200ER and 777W, so why exactly are we now making these comparisons as if these a/c were designed as head to head competitors?

^This! :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 8:17 pm

par13del wrote:
So here is my confusion, Boeing did not design the 787 to be a replacement for the 777W, Airbus did not design the A350 to be a head on competitor for the 787 but to go after the 777-200ER and 777W, so why exactly are we now making these comparisons as if these a/c were designed as head to head competitors?
How can we be shocked that the A350 goes further with more payload, that is what we expect from a larger frame, or are we just tired of comparing the A350 with the 777W?


The A333 was originally a regional aircraft, but see how much more capable it is now after multiple MTOW increases. My point is maybe there are potentials in 787 as well.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 9:18 pm

moyangmm wrote:
The A333 was originally a regional aircraft, but see how much more capable it is now after multiple MTOW increases. My point is maybe there are potentials in 787 as well.


The A330-300 benefited from sharing a fair bit of structure with the A340-300, however, and that frame was designed with Operating Weights 40,000kg higher at EIS compared to the A330-300.

Also, when first being presented to airlines in 2004, the Operating Weights of the 7E7 / 787 were much lower: 216,000kg for the 7E7-8 and 227,000kg for the 7E7-9. In discussions with customers who wanted more performance (likely due to choosing 9-abreast seating), Boeing increased them in 2006 to 220,000kg for the 787-8 and 245,000kg for the 787-9. They were subsequently raised yet again to 228,000kg for the 787-8 starting with LN20 both to counter the OEW overage of around 4000kg at the time and to improve performance even more.

The 787-9 also saw an MTOW boost to 247,000 kg in 2009 and then 252,000kg and finally the current 254,000kg to improve it's performance, as well, likely in the face of the launch of the A350XWB.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun May 13, 2018 10:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
The A333 was originally a regional aircraft, but see how much more capable it is now after multiple MTOW increases. My point is maybe there are potentials in 787 as well.


The A330-300 benefited from sharing a fair bit of structure with the A340-300, however, and that frame was designed with Operating Weights 40,000kg higher at EIS compared to the A330-300.

Also, when first being presented to airlines in 2004, the Operating Weights of the 7E7 / 787 were much lower: 216,000kg for the 7E7-8 and 227,000kg for the 7E7-9. In discussions with customers who wanted more performance (likely due to choosing 9-abreast seating), Boeing increased them in 2006 to 220,000kg for the 787-8 and 245,000kg for the 787-9. They were subsequently raised yet again to 228,000kg for the 787-8 starting with LN20 both to counter the OEW overage of around 4000kg at the time and to improve performance even more.

The 787-9 also saw an MTOW boost to 247,000 kg in 2009 and then 252,000kg and finally the current 254,000kg to improve it's performance, as well, likely in the face of the launch of the A350XWB.


Thanks for the informative reply, I learned a lot!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:41 am

It 'll be a cold day in hell before Boeing admits, but an affordable, light platform to move 300 people/ ~50t comfortably over 6000NM would be most welcome. It is the hot Asian airports to Europe / America's with good cargo.

The 787-9, 787-10 and 777-8 are not there , Boeing lost 77ER customers SQ, CX, JAL, BA, United and Delta because of it. The 787-10 wing is the 787-8 wing, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that.

A wing 20% bigger (surface) would make a hell of a difference. Two or three different fuselage lengths could be based at it. It would be a more direct XWB competitor / 777-200ER/300ER replacement in terms of capacity-range.

Image
https://www.henrylam.com.au/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rbavfan
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 5:47 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Simple stretches like the 787-10 trade maximum range for improved efficiency at short ranges. It allows you to cover more of the market.

Increasing maximum takeoff weight in a family as the aircraft get larger will usually keep the range and efficiency of each model fairly close.


The 787-10 is a simple stretch of the 787-9. It did not only exchange just range, but also payload for a higher passenger capacity. If one looks at LCC or ULCC the 787-10 has the same max passenger numbers as the A330-900.


No they have the same exit limit for number of doors. They are not approved for the same exit limits for seating in real operations. Boeing specs from: 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning are as follows. 787-8 limits 359 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 381 seats. 787-9 limits 406 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 420 seats. 787-10 limits 440 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 440 seats. Airbus specs from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170916225 ... ures-E.pdf The A330-200/800 list 406 & the A330-300/900 list 440.
Just because it has 4 doors per side does not mean they all seat the same. The A330-900 normally seats the same seat range as the 787-9 in real world use. A330-300/900 seats 300: 36 @ 60", 264@ 32", the 787-9 would seat 296 seats: 34 @ 60", 262 @ 32", the 787-10 would seat 342 seats: 44 @ 60", 298 @ 32" if both use the same seat pitches. As such it's only right to compare the A330-900 to the 787-9.
Thats why most of us don't buy the 787-10 competes directly against the A330-900 argument.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 5:57 pm

Stitch wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Point is, the 789 is a great aircraft but it has real limits on ULH routes, particularly westbound against the jetstream.


To be fair, the A350-900 is likely not going to fare appreciably better. Looking at the figures Airbus and Boeing provide in their ACAPs, both the 787-9 and A350-900 look to carry about 53,000kg at max payload with the 787-9 doing 5250nm at 254,000kg TOW and the A350-900 doing 6000nm at 275,000kg TOW. And United's 2017 Pacific load factor was 79%, which was three points down from 2016. So if we figure 80% average LF on those routes, that's 202 seats - 50 below capacity and more than what they normally block. SFO would need to be at 93% LF and LAX 87% before the average seat block had an impact on involuntary denied boardings.



Nice to see someone else using actual ACAP data, rather than just the usual well wikipedia says this comments.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 6:40 pm

rbavfan wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Simple stretches like the 787-10 trade maximum range for improved efficiency at short ranges. It allows you to cover more of the market.

Increasing maximum takeoff weight in a family as the aircraft get larger will usually keep the range and efficiency of each model fairly close.


The 787-10 is a simple stretch of the 787-9. It did not only exchange just range, but also payload for a higher passenger capacity. If one looks at LCC or ULCC the 787-10 has the same max passenger numbers as the A330-900.


No they have the same exit limit for number of doors. They are not approved for the same exit limits for seating in real operations. Boeing specs from: 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning are as follows. 787-8 limits 359 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 381 seats. 787-9 limits 406 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 420 seats. 787-10 limits 440 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 440 seats. Airbus specs from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170916225 ... ures-E.pdf The A330-200/800 list 406 & the A330-300/900 list 440.
Just because it has 4 doors per side does not mean they all seat the same. The A330-900 normally seats the same seat range as the 787-9 in real world use. A330-300/900 seats 300: 36 @ 60", 264@ 32", the 787-9 would seat 296 seats: 34 @ 60", 262 @ 32", the 787-10 would seat 342 seats: 44 @ 60", 298 @ 32" if both use the same seat pitches. As such it's only right to compare the A330-900 to the 787-9.
Thats why most of us don't buy the 787-10 competes directly against the A330-900 argument.


You can put 440 passengers in a A330-900 and you can put 440 passengers in a 787-10, that are maximum numbers. There are real world examples for A330-300 being outfitted for 440 or near to 440 pax. An A330-900 is designed to have some extra space compared to the A330-300 so it should be even easier to fit 440. I talked about LCC and ULCC and there are enough examples of them going for the exit limit numbers on other frames. All your long explanations do not change those facts.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:08 pm

keesje wrote:
Boeing lost 77ER customers SQ, CX, JAL, BA, United and Delta because of it.

Not sure how you could make the case at all for SQ,CX, or UA considering that they retained Boeing for the replacement of their upper end for that range.

Too early for JL and BA, as they haven't made the decision otherwise.

We know SQ and CX will be operating A350s and 777Xs in tandem, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to see it from other carriers as well.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
Boeing lost 77ER customers SQ, CX, JAL, BA, United and Delta because of it.

Not sure how you could make the case at all for SQ,CX, or UA considering that they retained Boeing for the replacement of their upper end for that range.

Too early for JL and BA, as they haven't made the decision otherwise.

We know SQ and CX will be operating A350s and 777Xs in tandem, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to see it from other carriers as well.


Those airlines have substantial A350 orders. They won't replace A340s.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:15 pm

keesje wrote:
A wing 20% bigger (surface) would make a hell of a difference. Two or three different fuselage lengths could be based at it. It would be a more direct XWB competitor / 777-200ER/300ER replacement in terms of capacity-range.

Ok, so the 787 was announced, the initial A350 in response did not pan out and Airbus then went with the XWB, but you are now saying that Boeing should have then re-done the 787 to be a better competitor to the a/c that came after it in response to it????I am confused.....
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:31 pm

par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
A wing 20% bigger (surface) would make a hell of a difference. Two or three different fuselage lengths could be based at it. It would be a more direct XWB competitor / 777-200ER/300ER replacement in terms of capacity-range.

Ok, so the 787 was announced, the initial A350 in response did not pan out and Airbus then went with the XWB, but you are now saying that Boeing should have then re-done the 787 to be a better competitor to the a/c that came after it in response to it????I am confused.....

Keesje is also ignoring how it would also make the 787 a worse A330 competitor. But I guess the A330 is trash nowadays because it lacks extreme payload/range and all the operators who bought 1,500 of them are just filled with buyers remorse.

Considering Boeing has sold almost 1400 787 I’d wager they are pretty happy with the market they decided on.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:34 pm

keesje wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
Boeing lost 77ER customers SQ, CX, JAL, BA, United and Delta because of it.

Not sure how you could make the case at all for SQ,CX, or UA considering that they retained Boeing for the replacement of their upper end for that range.

Too early for JL and BA, as they haven't made the decision otherwise.

We know SQ and CX will be operating A350s and 777Xs in tandem, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to see it from other carriers as well.


Those airlines have substantial A350 orders. They won't replace A340s.

2 of those 6 have substantial 777X orders. 4 of the 6 have substantial 787 orders. But I guess Boeing aimed wrong with the 787
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:42 pm

keesje wrote:
It 'll be a cold day in hell before Boeing admits, but an affordable, light platform to move 300 people/ ~50t comfortably over 6000NM would be most welcome. It is the hot Asian airports to Europe / America's with good cargo. The 787-9, 787-10 and 777-8 are not there , Boeing lost 77ER customers SQ, CX, JAL, BA, United and Delta because of it.


No UA 777-200ER configuration moves 300 people and they ordered the 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10. In fact, Airbus just lost them as a customer for the 300(+) seat market with their deciding against the A350-1000.

Only one of the five 777-200ER moves 300(+) people and they ordered the 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10.

No SQ 777-200ER configuration moves 300 people and they ordered the 787-9, the 787-9 and the 787-10 (with the two smaller models eventually moved to their Scoot subsidiary which actually did have 777-200ERs with more than 300 people).

No JL 777-200ER configuration moves 300 people and they ordered the 787-8 and 787-9 and you could argue that the A350 won not on merit, but because JL wanted to dual-source and that was the only other option (for the record, I would not argue that).

CX never operated the 777-200ER, so not sure why they're in the list.

So that just leaves having lost Delta.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 7:50 pm

What will those A350s replace? Say it! :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 8:16 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The 787-10 is a simple stretch of the 787-9. It did not only exchange just range, but also payload for a higher passenger capacity. If one looks at LCC or ULCC the 787-10 has the same max passenger numbers as the A330-900.


No they have the same exit limit for number of doors. They are not approved for the same exit limits for seating in real operations. Boeing specs from: 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning are as follows. 787-8 limits 359 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 381 seats. 787-9 limits 406 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 420 seats. 787-10 limits 440 seats all-economy seats; FAA exit limit = 440 seats. Airbus specs from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170916225 ... ures-E.pdf The A330-200/800 list 406 & the A330-300/900 list 440.
Just because it has 4 doors per side does not mean they all seat the same. The A330-900 normally seats the same seat range as the 787-9 in real world use. A330-300/900 seats 300: 36 @ 60", 264@ 32", the 787-9 would seat 296 seats: 34 @ 60", 262 @ 32", the 787-10 would seat 342 seats: 44 @ 60", 298 @ 32" if both use the same seat pitches. As such it's only right to compare the A330-900 to the 787-9.
Thats why most of us don't buy the 787-10 competes directly against the A330-900 argument.


You can put 440 passengers in a A330-900 and you can put 440 passengers in a 787-10, that are maximum numbers. There are real world examples for A330-300 being outfitted for 440 or near to 440 pax. An A330-900 is designed to have some extra space compared to the A330-300 so it should be even easier to fit 440. I talked about LCC and ULCC and there are enough examples of them going for the exit limit numbers on other frames. All your long explanations do not change those facts.


Yes, Lion Air does it in all economy 29 inch pitch seats in a 9 across configuration. They get right to 440 so that shows you what has to be done. You aren’t getting any premium seating and I believe they don’t offer any food service just snacks and drinks for sale so they don’t have a midcabin galley or anything like that.

I don’t think most carriers can do it on the A339neo. Not if you want to run any premium seating at all. And the pitch will be brutal. The 787-10 in the Lion Air setup doesn’t make much sense, though at least your pitch could go higher.

But for say Air Asia X if you want to run 12 lie flats up front you should be able to run 12 lie flats and 426 or so economy seats putting me up against the 440 limit on a 78J.

It will depend on the carrier but the A339neo isn’t hitting exit limits in anything but sardine style ala Lion Air.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 8:40 pm

keesje wrote:
What will those A350s replace? Say it! :wink2:


I am sure some of them will go to 777-200ER replacement. Just as I am sure some of those 787-9s and 787-10s will go to 777-200ER replacement.

And I expect some of those A350-900s will go to opening new routes or increasing frequencies, just as some of the 787-9s have and some of the 787-10s will.

Heck, carriers like UA are even using 787-9s to those "hot and high" Asian airports like SIN! :wideeyed:

So it's disingenuous to claim that Boeing "lost" those carriers as a customer since they clearly didn't.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 9:19 pm

Stitch wrote:
So it's disingenuous to claim that Boeing "lost" those carriers as a customer since they clearly didn't.


Ok I won't use "lost". Boeing used to have 80-100% of the WB's of a carrier and now 30-50%. Something "changed". Feels better?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 9:37 pm

keesje wrote:
Ok I won't use "lost". Boeing used to have 80-100% of the WB's of a carrier and now 30-50%. Something "changed". Feels better?

Yeah something changed, Airbus finally got off their duff and made a complimentary twin to the A330 and stopped flogging the A340-XXX as a worthy 777W competitor...Sound better?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 10:08 pm

par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
Ok I won't use "lost". Boeing used to have 80-100% of the WB's of a carrier and now 30-50%. Something "changed". Feels better?

Yeah something changed, Airbus finally got off their duff and made a complimentary twin to the A330 and stopped flogging the A340-XXX as a worthy 777W competitor...Sound better?

:check:

A340 was long the glaring chink in Airbus' widebody armor, and (though it took them long enough) they finally got around to correcting it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 10:17 pm

kevin5345179 wrote:
I guess pushing 787-10 higher MTOW will further affect 777-8 which is not selling well already ...


The people who need the 777-8 need

1) Hot/High Performance
2) Ultra long haul range at fully utilized space
3) Haul lots of fish

The people who need the 787-10 need

1) Decent range (US-EU,US-SA,West Coast-North Asia)
2) Trunk routes (EWR-FRA within category 1)
3) Freight Capacity (volume) but not Freight Weight
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon May 14, 2018 10:57 pm

The A340 sold "just" 400 and shared most costs with 1400 A330s and 800 A330/310s. Not keeping anyone awake I think. IMO 777-A340 is mostly just a sweet memory for some cherishing the past where Boeing was dominant on WB's. Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 3:14 am

keesje wrote:
The A340 sold "just" 400 and shared most costs with 1400 A330s and 800 A330/310s. Not keeping anyone awake I think. IMO 777-A340 is mostly just a sweet memory for some cherishing the past where Boeing was dominant on WB's. Image


With:

1200 767 and 2000 777 sold, the "old" Boeing WB Twins didn't fare too badly against the "old Airbus WB Twins and small WB Quad. (3200 vs 2600)

If you want to include large Quads, the counts are 1568 747 vs 331 A380.

A new Twins comparison shows Boeing with a similar lead, 1365 787 vs 832 A350.

Boeing's lead in all segments of the WB market seems to be alive and well.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
LH707330
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 4:02 am

Matt6461 wrote:
There's no tech reason for the A330 to have significantly greater AR than 787.

Yeah there is: the A330/340 wing was deliberately designed with a high T/C ratio to get that aspect ratio, which involved sacrificing a few percent in cruise speed.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 6:08 am

LAX772LR wrote:
par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
Ok I won't use "lost". Boeing used to have 80-100% of the WB's of a carrier and now 30-50%. Something "changed". Feels better?

Yeah something changed, Airbus finally got off their duff and made a complimentary twin to the A330 and stopped flogging the A340-XXX as a worthy 777W competitor...Sound better?

:check:

A340 was long the glaring chink in Airbus' widebody armor, and (though it took them long enough) they finally got around to correcting it.



Boeing still controls 60% of the wide body market, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 6:11 am

keesje wrote:
The A340 sold "just" 400 and shared most costs with 1400 A330s and 800 A330/310s. Not keeping anyone awake I think. IMO 777-A340 is mostly just a sweet memory for some cherishing the past where Boeing was dominant on WB's. Image



Boeing is and always has been dominate in the upper end of the market. No amount of spin changes the basic facts.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10905
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 6:23 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Boeing still controls 60% of the wide body market, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

Possibly.

Really depends on how well they pull off the MOM (assuming it's indeed a widebody); and how the 77W and A380 replacement markets go, once they kicks into full swing.

The 777X may well find its stride at that point, or it could get wiped out by an A35K/380Plus that've had time to get fine-tuned, or something in the middle.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue May 15, 2018 6:57 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Boeing still controls 60% of the wide body market, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

Possibly.

Really depends on how well they pull off the MOM (assuming it's indeed a widebody); and how the 77W and A380 replacement markets go, once they kicks into full swing.

The 777X may well find its stride at that point, or it could get wiped out by an A35K/380Plus that've had time to get fine-tuned, or something in the middle.



Thanks. I think you're a good and generally very fair poster. It just amuses me when Airbus fans try to imply there is some kind of parity in the wide body market between Boeing and Airbus. There is not. Boeing has dominated the upper end of the market since the 707. Currently Boeing has 60% of wide body sales. That is dominate.

Airbus has 59% of narrow body sales. That is dominate. Facts are facts and I have no problem admitting where each air frame manufacturer is strong in a certain market segments and where they are weak.

Imho Boeing effectively has Airbus bracketed in the wide body market from below the 787 family and from above with the 777x. The 787 family is also far more versatile than anything Airbus is offering.

The A350 is an excellent plane and it is an ideal 77E replacement. But the 777x has more capacity and payload over range while the 787 family can fulfill a wider number of missions and shared a type rating with the 777x. In short, I don't Boeing is giving up their top dog position in the wide body market.

Airbus always seems two moves behind Boeing in this area while Boeing seems equally behind Airbus with narrow bodies. I think each continues to dominate their respective , segments.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos